Posted on 08/13/2007 9:43:19 AM PDT by IrishMike
RUSH: This is interesting. "President Bush charged yesterday that Iran continues to arm and train insurgents who are killing U.S. soldiers in Iraq, and he threatened action if that continues. At a news conference, Bush said Iran had been warned of unspecified consequences if it continues its support for anti-American forces in Iraq. U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker had conveyed the warning in meetings with his Iranian counterpart in Baghdad, the president said. Bush wasn't specific, and a State Department official refused to elaborate on the warning. Behind the scenes, however, the president's top aides have been engaged in an intensive debate over how to respond to Iran's nuclear program and its support for Shiite Muslim groups in Iraq."
Look, I don't know what the president is going to do, but I'll tell you something here, folks. I cannot see -- and I'm going way out on a limb here -- I cannot see this president leaving office with a nuclear capable Iran. I just can't see it. Not after the sincerity and seriousness in which he has devoted his presidency to the preservation of this country's national security. I just can't see it. I think the president well knows. There are a lot of similarities here. We've talked about this on the program, what the Iranian mullahs are saying and what Ahmadinejad is saying, to what Hitler was doing back in the 30s. It's amazing how history is repeating itself. Back in the 30s, "Hitler's not going to do that. Nobody will do that." They didn't take him seriously, even when he started his march. Didn't take him seriously. Didn't want to face it. That world was just coming out of WWI, memories were still lingering fresh. Nobody wanted to rev back up into that kind of mode.
Here in this country we have whatever percentage the population who has forgotten about 9/11. We have the Democrat Party aligned with the Drive-By Media doing everything they can to convince people in this country there is no external threat to the United States because they're going to get rid of Bush some day. When we get rid of Bush, the world will love us again, including the Islamofascists. But I talked to Norman Podhoretz, who has a book coming out on what he calls WWIV that we're in now with Islamofascists, and he's trying to sound a clarion call. The book comes out on 9/11 by the way. I spoke to him and interviewed him for the newsletter in the next issue, September issue. He is convinced that Iran is something that's going to have to be dealt with sooner rather than later. If we wait until they're nuclear tipped then what do you do? Then the whole recipe for dealing with it changes. He said to me in our interview, "Baby Boomers grew up and they started learning about what happened in World War II and the rise of Hitler and the Neville Chamberlain incident and so forth. They started learning more about it in school. There were frequent movies made, World War II movies. In fact, to this day, movies are still made about the Holocaust. Fifty years after it was over, 40 years after World War II there were young people looking back and saying to people in Europe, "How could you let this happen? How could you have let this happen?"
Norman Podhoretz said to me that his great fear is that in another 20 or 30 or 50 years from now, if Iran is allowed the nuclear tip, people will be looking back and saying, "How could you have let it happen?" Meaning leaders. How could you have let it happen? How could you have let this happen? That's where I answer the question. I don't think George W. Bush is a president who is going to let it happen. So when you got a headline: "President warns Iran, or else," you might say, "Yeah, or else what?" "Stop aiding rebels, or else." Or else what? Well, there is an else. I'm certain of this. Not because of anything I spoke to him about. I was up there a week ago last night, and I was with him two and a half hours. I want to assure you none of what I'm saying right now are his words. He didn't discuss anything militarily about Iran in any way shape, matter or form. This is just my own assessment. I know he doesn't want to be one of the people 30 years from now that people say, "Why didn't you do something?"
Iran's in a bind. Continue to support democracy in Iraq, keep Iran politically isolated and support pro-democracy forces in Iran and the Iranian people should be able to overthrow the theocratic-oligarchy themselves. Iran has sent enough weapons to Iraq that some of them are flowing back into Iran to be used against "the Arabs".
Actually, World war 4 started in 635 with the rise of Islam, and the day Muhammad attacked the first Jewish settlement of Medina. This war has been ongoing ever since through the centuries.
Depleted Uranium reinforced hunks of lazer guided concrete.
Under moral equivalency rules, no problem.
I thought that was an excellent analysis.
MEMRI - August 14, 2007 - No.380
The Strategic Alliance Between Iran and Syria - Military and Economic Aspects
http://memri.org/bin/opener_latest.cgi?ID=IA38007
Of course, drive by media did it's best to cover up Clintons failings and deceiving the American people as to what is going on in the world, the Global Jihad taking place all over the world.
I would rather have a situation where no war was necessary, that Iran was a peace-loving nation that adhered to its agreements and to standards of human decency that all in the West understand and largely practice.
But I don’t live in a dream world.
I pray that President Bush doesn’t, either (and, at least on this score, I don’t believe that he does). I hope that the President, for all of his faults and all of his mistakes, doesn’t make the HUGE mistake of leaving the present Iranian regime standing with its nuclear production facilities intact. War is Hell, but sometimes it is inevitable - and the only choices are when it will be fought, on whose terms, and what will be the magnitude of the casualties. To my way of thinking, war between Iran and Israel/the US/the West is inevitable - nay, IT IS ONGOING, AT THEIR INITIATION - and it is best (which is to say, the least bad option) for us to hit them - very hard - while we still have the means to do it and they don’t have the means to hit us back that hard.
Please, President Bush, do the right thing, even though it is difficult and you’ll be roundly criticized by those lacking understanding (but not ink or airtime). Be Churchill, not Chamberlain - for the sake of this country and the world. Act, because the next President may lack the courage and/or the insight to do it. Act, before Iran gets nukes and takes the option out of our hands.
That’s true. As long as people see it as a limited, sparodic problem, rather than the coordinated and global strategy of an aggressive and death-dealing ideology, they won’t get serious about fighting it.
And I think you’re right about the desire of the media to cover up for Clinton’s clueless and cowardly response to the whole thing. They would do anything to defend one who was (and is) clearly their idol.
Did we not arm the enemies of our enemies whenever we thought it was the way to go? We sent arms to Nicaragua, Afghanistan, IRAN etc.
“Hophead”? - ‘Nuff said.
First one on Chappaqua, the second on Dearborn and third on Mecca?
....you forgot San Francisco.....
No.
“‘Nuff said.”
Did we or didn’t we?
The article DID start out with the issue of Iran sending arms to Iraq, NOT about Iran having nuclear weapons.
All righty, then.
” You’re expecting a thoughtful answer from someone who calls himself “hophead?””
This is not the DailyKos you are posting to. Remember where you are! Name calling is for leftards.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.